Cases 11 - 20 of 59
Jones v. AT&T Inc.
as 1:2022cv00064
Plaintiff:
David L. Jones
Defendant:
AT&T Inc.
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Civil Rights
JONES v. ANDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
as 1:2022cv00507
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
ANDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, JOSHA BOWLING, MATTHEW KOPP and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jones v. Shelby County Sheriff Department et al
as 4:2021cv00397
Plaintiff:
David Tyron Jones
Defendant:
Crittenden County Sheriff Department, Shelby County Sheriff Department and Does Government Hospitals in Tennessee and Arkansas
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
JONES v. KOESTER et al
as 1:2021cv00282
Plaintiff:
DAVID MICHAEL JONES
Defendant:
RODNEY CUMMINS, STEVE KOESTER and DANIEL KOPP
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
David Daryl Jones et al v. Myvette Goldburn
as 2:2021cv00113
Plaintiff:
Jessie Joshua Jones and David Daryl Jones
Defendant:
Myvette Goldburn, DOES 1-15 and Deputy Myvette Goldburn
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1442
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2020cv03008
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
David Daryl Jones et al v. Deputy Myvette Goldburg
as 2:2020cv08204
Plaintiff:
Jessie Joshua Jones and David Daryl Jones
Defendant:
Myvette Goldburn and Deputy Myvette Goldburg
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
David Daryl Jones v. Sander Brouwers et al
as 2:2020cv07067
Plaintiff:
David Daryl Jones
Defendant:
Sander Brouwers and Does 1 through 15, inclusive
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jones v. Jenkins
as 1:2020cv00068
Defendant:
Judge Scott H. Jenkins
Plaintiff:
David E. Jones
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Jones v. Shelby County Sheriff Department et al
as 3:2019cv00715
Defendant:
Carolyn Wilks, Western Mental Health and Shelby County Sheriff Department
Plaintiff:
David Tyron Jones
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
